Laserfiche WebLink
that "Denver Water and Arvada Water are currently bearing the costs of treating the water <br />contaminated by Cotter." See Order ¶ 32, AR:00850. While the Defendants discuss the "Water <br />Users Statements," Answer Brief at 21 -26, nothing in those statements indicates that Denver <br />Water and Arvada Water are currently bearing the cost of treating water. These statements <br />speculate about what might occur, and do not include what costs were currently being incurred. <br />Conclusory findings cannot support a substantial evidence standard. Katzson Bros., Inc. v. EPA, <br />839 F.2d 1396, 1400 -01 (10 Cir. 1988). <br />D. The Board Failed to Evaluate the Reasonableness of Corrective Action No. 2. <br />1. Substantial Evidence Exists That Corrective Action No. 2 Will Result <br />in Adverse Environmental Consequences. <br />The Answer Brief fails to successfully address the adverse environmental consequences <br />that will arise from mine dewatering. See Opening Brief at 24 -25. While the Defendants point <br />to testimony that the data on which Cotter relies was based on a small fraction of the mine pool, <br />the Defendants ignore the scientific principles that are consistent with the actual declining <br />uranium concentrations in the Schwartzwalder mine pool. AR:00265 -66, 00951:21- 00952:24, <br />00956:21- 00957:18. The Defendants are indifferent to the increases in uranium concentrations <br />in the mine pool that will be caused by dewatering, see Opening Brief at 24, and to the added <br />complications and costs of dewatering and treating more highly concentrated uranium in the <br />mine pool, suggesting that Cotter should dewater and treat the mine pool, no matter what the <br />hardship and costs are. <br />The Defendants point to examples of other mines where they believe mine flooding is <br />"risky," Answer Brief at 43 -44, but the substantial evidence demonstrated that the specific data <br />5 The discussion of Water User Statements regarding the quality of water entering <br />Ralston Creek, Answer Brief at 22, ignores the significant dilution of water in Ralston Reservoir <br />from other sources. See Opening Brief at 7. <br />10 <br />